Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Where in The World Is Al Gore?

Is he giving a speech in China?



Millions remained stranded in China on Monday ahead of the biggest holiday of the year as parts of the country suffered their coldest winter in a century.

Freezing weather has killed scores of people and left travelers stranded before the Lunar New Year, or Spring Festival -- the only opportunity many people have for a holiday all year.

It has also brought China unwanted negative publicity six months before the Summer Olympics in Beijing.

President Hu Jintao chaired an emergency Politburo meeting on Sunday for the second time in a week to discuss rescue efforts.

"We have to be clear-minded that the inclement weather and severe disaster will continue to plague certain regions in the south," said a statement issued after Sunday's meeting. "Relief work will continue to face challenges, posing a tough task."

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Lessons for Teacher Lu

Scotty writes about Chris Lupke's Town Crier column in the Daily News today:
He makes it seem like the businessmen in China are complaining about WalMart. But, that is not what was being said.
Given previous letters to the editor from PARD, I'm surprised Lupke stopped at lead paint and didn't blame Wal-mart for kiddie porn and crack houses as well.

Let's examine a few of Lu Laoshi's claims further, shall we?

If Wal-Mart is such a all-powerful monopsony that it squeezes poor Chinese suppliers to "commit suicide," then why has it's stock declined 25 percent in the last three years? You can't have it both ways. As a recent Wall Street Journal article so gleefully touted by the PARDners states, "As Wal-Mart's influence erodes, so does its allure to manufacturers." The Journal continues,
In some ways, Wal-Mart's loss of clout is a reflection of a more fragmented world. Retailing is a mirror to how we live and work. Big-box stores thrived by selling highly recognizable national brands, which themselves were fed by two phenomena: the growth of mass media and freeways, which encouraged large stores in remote areas. Stores and brands together achieved scale efficiencies that allowed them to overwhelm local chain stores and regional brands.

But the Internet is transforming the retail definition of scale. The once-stunning compilation of 142,000 items found in a Wal-Mart supercenter doesn't seem so vast alongside the millions of products available on the Internet.

At the same time, the cost of creating and sustaining a national brand is rising because of media fragmentation. Niche brands, created by Internet word of mouth, are winning shelf space and sapping profits required to fund big brands' advertising.
So it is the free market and consumers, as always, not union-funded "grassroots" pressure groups like PARD,that are changing Wal-Mart.

By the way, according to the New York Times, Wal-Mart's stock stumbled because the company abandoned its traditional customer base and tried to go "upscale."

If Chinese workers average $150 per month working in factories that supply Wal-Mart, what were they earning before they started working in those factories? What are the alternatives? I find it highly interesting that liberals like Lupke who want the U.S. to stop trying to impose American-style democracy on countries like Iraq are so anxious to impose American-style wages and working conditions on countries like China.

If PARD is a "grassroots group" contending that Wal-Mart damages "smaller and locally owned businesses," why did Lupke have to use a quote from a furniture store owner in Chicago? Is it because the only anti-Wal-Mart business owner in Pullman left town a year ago? Is it because ALL the public comments from business owners in Pullman have been in favor of Wal-Mart coming to town?

Speaking of Chicago, Lupke leaves out a few salient points, as you might expect. For one, the fact that 25,000 Chicagoans applied for 325 jobs at the store. I guess Wal-Mart must not be as bad a place to work as Lu Laoshi claims. Also, since Wal-Mart opened in the West Side of Chicago a year ago, according to the Chicago Tribune, it has generated more than $5 million in state and local taxes. And all of that despite massive union efforts to block the West Side store and continuing efforts to block a South Side store.

Fortunately, Mayor Daley vetoed the city council's union-bought and paid "living wage ordinance" designed to stop Wal-Mart from opening on the West Side and sided with folks like Alderwoman Emma Mitts of the predominantly minority 37th Ward on the West Side who stated:
I'm not in your business, so don't get in my business in my ward. If they don't want a Wal-Mart, fine, I do. I have kids in my neighborhood telling me, "I need a job." I can get opportunities for them. I started out working in a grocery store. It helped me.
And speaking of labor unions, it is no coincidence that Lupke used the phrase "Wal-Mart actually does seem to be waking up a bit." Wake Up Wal-Mart! is the anti-Wal-Mart organization funded by the United Food and Commerical Workers union. That is the same union that PARD's attorney David Bricklin just recently represented over in Fircrest, WA in a Wal-Mart appeal.

Wal-Mart did not launch its $4 prescription program to "cultivate support in communities," it did it to help revive those flagging stock values Lupke touts. I couldn't find any Wall Street Journal editorials critical of this, but I did find a Wall Street Journal/Harris poll that found low-priced generic drugs are likely to attract a big share of the market for prescription drugs. And there was a Journal editorial in December 2005 that concluded that the campaign against Wal-Mart is about union politics.
Is Wal-Mart Good for America?

It is a testament to the public-relations success of the anti-Wal-Mart campaign that the question above is even being asked.

By any normal measure, Wal-Mart's business ought to be noncontroversial. It sells at low cost, albeit in mind-boggling quantities, the quotidian products that huge numbers of Americans evidently want to buy--from household goods to clothes to food.
Funny, Lu Laoshi didn't mention that one.

Lastly, as to Lupke's point of the lawsuit against Wal-Mart for hours worked off the clock, I suppose it bears mentioning yet again that Costco, the preferred big-box store of PARDners everywhere, is the subject of a class action lawsuit for gender discrimination. Why, the PARDners will sputter, Wal-Mart has been sued much more than Costco. Indeed. Wal-Mart has 1.6 million employees versus 136,000 for Costco and Wal-Mart garners five times as much in annual sales as Costco. Do the math. Who's the bigger target?

Technorati Tags:

Wal-Mart and China: The Truth

Is Wal-Mart unfairly exploiting Chinese workers and companies through its "monopsony power" (a market with only one buyer) and offshoring American jobs as critics claim? Of course not, that's an absurd notion.

Emek Basker, from the University of Missouri, and Pham Hoang Van, of Baylor University, released a scientific study in May 2007 titled, "Wal-Mart as Catalyst to U.S.-China Trade."

They concluded:
There is a common perception that Wal-Mart and trade with China are related. But the discussion of the relationship betweenWal-Mart’s growth and import growth tends to focus on Wal-Mart’s monopsony power implied in the often-made claim that Wal-Mart “forces” suppliers to move production overseas in order to cut costs. In a model with increasing marginal cost, a monopsonist who cannot price-discriminate depresses production to extract a lower input price. Such a model counter-intuitively implies that in the absence of Wal-Mart and other large chains, imports would have grown at a rate even faster than the one we have observed over the past two decades.
Basker and Pham found that it was improved technology and liberalization of trade with China that have driven Wal-Mart's growth and created a two-way relationship between the chain’s size and its sourcing choice. If you want to blame anyone for loss of American jobs, blame Bill Gates and Congress, not Wal-Mart. They just took advantage of the system, as any business would do, and in turn have benefitted millions of Americans through lower prices.

But of course, globalization of trade is not bad. It's good for all concerned. In The Wal-Mart Revolution, Richard Vedder and Wendell Cox stated:
World economic and trade meetings usually attract demonstrations, sometimes violent ones, against "globalization." One of the principal claims is that the international factories supplying products to companies such as Wal-Mart and General Motors drive down the wages and standards of living in their low-income host countries. If this were so, then it should be evident in the economic data. Where there is significant manufacture of products for American and Western European markets, gross domestic product growth per capita should be falling. A review of the five low-income Asian nations with strong export growth indicates the opposite. From 1999 to 2005, world real GDP per capita rose by an average of 19 percent. By comarison:

  • China increased the value of its exports 229 percent. At the same time, its per-capita real GDP rose 53 percent.


  • Indonesia increased the value of its exports 49 percent. At the same time, its per-capita real GDP rose 10 percent


  • India increased the value of its exports 79 percent. At the same time, its per-capita real GDP rose 56 percent.

  • Bangladesh increased the value of its exports 57 percent. At the same time, its per-capita real GDP rose 22 percent.


  • Vietnam increased the value of its exports 139 percent. At the same time, its per-capita real GDP rose 29 percent.


  • Each of the export-driven nations has experienced greater economic growth in income - significantly above the world rate. The factories provide jobs and income that would not exist if the big-box stores weren't selling their products. China, India, Indonesia, and their people would be worse off without them. Moreover, the countries that import their products, such as the United States, have been better off as well. Economic growth in the United States has not slowed with rising globalization, and lower prices from imported goods at places like Wal-Mart have brough billions of dollars of consumer surplus and welfare to ordinary Americans - aspillover effect of the internationalization of retail trade.
    Technorati Tags:

    Tuesday, November 13, 2007

    Chinese Submarine sneaks into Navy excercise.

    This is a picture of a Song class submarine, the same one that popped up during a U.S. Navy exercise with the Kitty Hawk Battle Group.


    I heard this on the radio and it is messed up in my opinion. We know the Chinese are rapidly building up a "Blue Water" fleet. They are acquiring subs and sub technology from Russia. They are also buying old Russian Carriers and building two carriers from scratch.
    The question is, when are we going to start building more subs or upgrading old ones? I know the life of a sub is around 20 years. About the life of their reactor(s).
    We know China is a growing threat, what are we going to do about it? Maybe we should change our naval doctrine and build more subs.
    Anyone on the blog who was in the Navy has any comments?